Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.unit0.net!news2.euro.net!postnews2.euro.net!news.wanadoo.nl!not-for-mail
From: mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix)
Subject: Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Message-ID: <04791995948435@frunobulax.edu>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2012 16:56:31 +0200
References: <2012Sep8.133842@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>
X-Newsreader: iForth 2.0 console (October 21, 2006)
Lines: 32
Organization: Wanadoo
NNTP-Posting-Date: 08 Sep 2012 14:56:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: s529d937f.adsl.wanadoo.nl
X-Trace: 1347116161 dr2.euro.net 239 82.157.147.127:50455
X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.nl
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.forth:15531

anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) writes Re: OOP (was: Forth as a polarising language)

> mhx@iae.nl (Marcel Hendrix) writes:
>>I have been interested in FOOP ever since Dick Pountain wrote his 
>>BYTE articles (30 years ago?). However, in all that time I have 
>>*never* seen an interesting Forth program that uses (needed to use) 
>>OOP.

>Gray uses OOP (a pretty simple one, a predecessor to mini-OOF) and you
>seemed to find it interesting.

I still think its interesting, but I have to admit I have never 
thought about it as 'object-oriented' but always as 
'extremely Forth-like'.  Maybe even a little bit too Forth-like 
even, because Crenshaw's series of articles is a lot easier to 
understand and maintain :-)

> Bernd Paysan has Minos for his BerndOOF.

For user interface/GUI type problems object-orientation is 
beyond question and the time-and-tried solution. 

> But yes, for most stuff that I did, objects did not look useful, so I
> used OOP rarely, and if I did, it's something very simple.  Maybe
> vmgen and libcc would have profited from OOP if I had used it.

I suspect they would not. IMHO, complex, seldomly-used programs that 
contain expert knowledge should be as simple and straight-forward as 
possible.

-marcel